Author: Annabel Makhwaya

Former Jumia Kenya Executive Alleges Racial Discrimination in Language Preference Row

Chief operations officer claims French-speaking bias led to constructive dismissal from e-commerce giant

NAIROBI — A former senior executive at Jumia Kenya has filed a lawsuit alleging he was forced out of his position partly because he does not speak French, in a case that has raised questions about diversity and inclusion practices at one of Africa’s largest e-commerce platforms.

James Njine Kamau, who served as chief operations officer at Ecart Services Kenya Limited, Jumia’s parent company, claims the firm’s chief executive told him in August 2025 that he preferred French-speaking managers because they were “easier to deal with” than their English-speaking counterparts.

The allegation, detailed in court documents filed at the Chief Magistrate’s court in Milimani, Nairobi, on Tuesday, marks a rare public challenge to corporate practices at a company that has positioned itself as a champion of digital commerce across the continent.

Mr Njine, who spent seven years rising through the ranks at Jumia before his departure in late 2025, is seeking at least 14.1 million Kenyan shillings in compensation and damages. His lawsuit paints a picture of systematic marginalisation that he says began shortly after a new chief executive joined the company in May 2024.

“This conduct was discriminatory, arbitrary, targeted me on the basis of linguistic and cultural identity, and was clearly designed to marginalise me, undermine my professional standing, and impede my career progression,” Mr Njine stated in his witness statement.

The case comes at a sensitive time for Jumia, which has been restructuring operations across Africa as it seeks to achieve profitability after years of losses. The company, which went public on the New York Stock Exchange in 2019, has faced mounting pressure from investors to demonstrate sustainable growth in challenging markets.

Ecart Services has denied any wrongdoing. In an emailed response, Ibrahim Mbogo, speaking for the company, said Jumia observes “the highest standards of corporate governance and labour laws in Kenya” and is “committed to a diverse, inclusive, and merit-based workplace.”

“Jumia cannot provide specific comments on the allegations or the merits of the case at this time, as we respect the judicial process and will present our defence formally in court,” Mr Mbogo added.

According to the lawsuit, Mr Njine’s troubles began after the arrival of new management. He claims he was subjected to what he describes as a “fundamentally flawed” performance improvement plan designed to create a pretext for his removal rather than to support his development.

The former executive alleges he was deliberately excluded from high-level meetings and strategic decision-making forums that were integral to his role as chief commercial officer, a position he had been promoted to in December 2024.

“Such actions were not isolated, but systematic, coordinated, and deliberate, intended to erode my authority, diminish my professional standing, and create a humiliating, hostile, and untenable working environment,” Mr Njine stated.

The situation came to a head when the company presented him with a separation agreement offering a 3.2 million shilling package, which he rejected. The agreement would have terminated his contract on December 31, 2025.

Mr Njine’s legal team characterises his subsequent resignation as constructive dismissal, arguing that the working environment had become intolerable. In a demand letter sent on December 4, 2025, his lawyers wrote that the company’s actions had “stripped our client of the dignity, authority, and responsibilities inherent in his role.”

The compensation Mr Njine is seeking includes 8.7 million shillings for unfair termination, 2.2 million shillings representing three months’ salary in lieu of notice, and 735,743 shillings for accrued but untaken leave. He also wants the court to order immediate vesting of 4,000 shares granted to him under Jumia’s virtual restricted stock unit programme in December 2024, which were scheduled to vest in December 2026.

Beyond financial compensation, Mr Njine is asking the court to declare that Ecart’s conduct violated both the Employment Act and the Constitution of Kenya. He wants a ruling that he was subjected to unfair labour practices through “deliberate marginalisation” and the imposition of what he calls a sham performance improvement plan.

The case highlights broader questions about corporate culture and diversity in multinational companies operating across Africa, where linguistic and cultural differences can complicate management structures. Jumia, founded in Nigeria by French entrepreneurs, operates across 11 African countries with varying colonial histories and official languages.

Employment law experts say the case could set important precedents for how discrimination based on language is treated under Kenyan law, particularly in multinational corporations where linguistic preferences may intersect with broader issues of cultural bias.

The lawsuit arrives as Jumia continues to navigate a difficult business environment. In November, the company announced it was leveraging artificial intelligence to reduce its workforce by seven percent as part of ongoing efficiency measures. Earlier this year, it announced plans to cut logistics costs through the introduction of electric vehicles.

Mr Njine’s career at Jumia spanned multiple roles. He joined as a commercial planner in 2018, before being promoted to head of commercial operations and head of performance and planning in 2022. In December 2023, he took on the additional role of head of general merchandise before his final promotion to chief commercial officer.

The court has yet to set a hearing date for the case. Both parties are expected to present their arguments in the coming months, with the outcome likely to have implications for employment practices across Kenya’s growing technology sector.

Kenyans with unexplained money flowing into their bank accounts and mobile money wallets now face the prospect of paying tax on these deposits after the Tax Appeals Tribunal handed the Kenya Revenue Authority fresh powers to treat undocumented cash as taxable income.

In a landmark ruling that signals a major shift in how the taxman pursues revenue, the tribunal has determined that the burden of proof lies squarely with account holders to demonstrate that their deposits are not income. The decision effectively reverses the traditional approach where KRA had to prove that money was taxable before demanding payment.

The ruling emerged from a dispute between KRA and Virginia Wangari, a Naivasha hotel businesswoman, whom the authority assessed for Sh6.5 million in taxes after discovering Sh52.6 million in unexplained bank and M-Pesa deposits between 2018 and 2022. After adjusting for supported non-income items, KRA treated net deposits of Sh50.9 million as taxable income and applied an industry profit margin of 18.49 percent for the hospitality sector.

Wangari challenged the assessment, arguing that KRA had wrongly assumed all deposits were income, ignored her explanations, applied an arbitrary margin, and subjected her to double taxation. However, the tribunal dismissed her appeal, holding that tax assessments by the Commissioner enjoy a presumption of correctness until rebutted by documentary evidence.

The tribunal emphasized that taxpayers must produce bank reconciliations, source documents, ledgers, or contracts to show that funds were capital injections, loans, or agency collections. General explanations without supporting documentation, the panel ruled, do not displace tax liability.

Tax experts say the ruling represents a significant escalation in KRA’s enforcement powers and places millions of Kenyans at risk of unexpected tax bills if they cannot adequately document the sources of their income. The decision comes at a time when President William Ruto’s administration has intensified its crackdown on tax evasion to boost revenue collection without imposing new taxes following the deadly anti-tax protests of 2024 that claimed over 50 lives.

The ruling builds on another controversial case involving Kirin Pipes Limited, where the tribunal upheld a Sh21.6 million tax assessment after the company failed to prove that deposits into its accounts between 2019 and 2022 were loans or shareholder capital rather than undeclared sales revenue. KRA had initially assessed the pipe manufacturer for Sh34.3 million in income tax and Sh22.6 million in VAT after its banking analysis revealed unexplained deposits.

In that case, Kirin Pipes argued that shareholders had injected Sh29.4 million in additional capital, secured a Sh31.6 million loan from Nanchang Municipal Engineering Development, and received Sh24.6 million from shareholders to fund operations. The company also claimed some deposits were advance payments from clients that were later invoiced and declared for tax purposes.

However, the tribunal found that the company had provided uncertified bank statements and vague SWIFT confirmation slips without corroborating documents such as board resolutions, updated CR12 records showing revised shareholding, or evidence of loan repayment. The loan agreement itself was deemed problematic as it was interest-free, open-ended, and had no repayment timeline.

Samuel Mwaura, Tax Partner at Grant Thornton Kenya, warns that the rulings signal a new era of aggressive tax enforcement. He predicts an increase in litigation as the authority disallows expenses not supported by electronic tax invoices, even when they represent genuine business costs.

The legal backing for KRA’s approach comes from Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, which broadly defines income to include business profits, employment earnings, rent, dividends, interest, pensions, and other gains or benefits unless specifically exempted. This means any unexplained deposits, when not backed by proper documentation such as loan agreements or shareholder capital records, fall within the definition of taxable income.

KRA has clarified that the ruling does not give it blanket powers to tax every deposit made into personal or business accounts. The authority maintains that properly documented funds, such as loan proceeds, shareholder capital, or transfers supported by verifiable records, are not subject to taxation. However, the onus is on taxpayers to provide this documentation when challenged.

The enforcement push is part of a broader strategy by KRA to leverage technology and data analytics to identify tax evaders. From January 2026, the authority launched an automated digital system that validates income and expenses declared in tax returns against electronic tax invoices, withholding tax records, and import declarations from customs systems.

This new validation system, integrated into the iTax platform, flags mismatches in income declarations, VAT claims, and withholding tax data in real time. All declared income and expenses must now be supported by valid electronic tax invoices correctly transmitted with the buyer’s PIN, subject to exceptions provided under the Tax Procedures Act.

The digital crackdown extends beyond bank deposits to target the entire spectrum of business operations. KRA’s enforcement unit has been using various databases to pursue suspected tax cheats, including bank statements, import records, motor vehicle registration details, Kenya Power records, water bills, and data from the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority, which reveals individuals who own assets such as aircraft.

Car registration details are being used to identify individuals driving high-end vehicles but remitting little in taxes, while Kenya Power meter registrations help the taxman identify landlords who have been slapped with huge tax demands. The authority has also sought details of suppliers and contractors hired by county governments to tighten the noose on individuals and firms evading tax.

The banking analysis method, treating unexplained deposits as income, is increasingly becoming KRA’s weapon of choice during audits. The tribunal has cited earlier rulings holding that all bank deposits are taxable unless the account holder explains, with evidence, why they should not be taxed.

For businesses, the implications are profound. Companies that rely on informal suppliers who cannot issue electronic tax invoices face a dilemma. Unless expenses are documented electronically, KRA will assume the money remains in the business’s pocket and treat it as profit subject to tax.

Consider a small agribusiness that buys fertilizer and seeds from a rural supplier who has no PIN and cannot issue an electronic tax invoice. If the business paid Sh400,000 for these inputs, KRA will automatically treat that amount as profit, even though it was spent on genuine business expenses. Similarly, if a business spent Sh1 million in total but only Sh300,000 has electronic documentation, the remaining Sh700,000 will inflate profits, increasing the company’s tax bill and squeezing cash flow.

Self-employed professionals, including consultants, advisors, trainers, and freelancers, are among the most exposed under the new regime. KRA is now cross-referencing withholding tax records submitted by clients against annual income tax returns. When a client pays a consultant, they are required to deduct withholding tax at source and remit it directly to KRA. If a consultant files a nil return, under-declares income, or omits consultancy fees already subjected to withholding tax, the system automatically flags the account, triggering audits, penalties, and enforcement actions that may include bank account freezes or asset seizures.

Tax practitioners advise businesses and individuals to maintain meticulous records of all transactions, including bank reconciliations, source documents, ledgers, contracts, and board resolutions. They recommend setting aside between 25 and 30 percent of earnings for tax obligations to ease cash flow pressure and engaging certified tax professionals to reduce exposure to compliance risks.

The tribunal rulings come as KRA faces mounting pressure to meet revenue targets amid persistent shortfalls. Official data shows the authority collected Sh2.257 trillion in the year through June 2025, missing its revised target by Sh47.3 billion. This marked the third consecutive annual shortfall, exacerbating fiscal pressure at a time when public debt has surpassed Sh11.5 trillion.

The expanded enforcement coincides with major restructuring at KRA’s Times Tower headquarters, including recruitment for senior positions such as Deputy Commissioners, as the authority seeks to improve collection, particularly from the informal economy where compliance remains low.

However, the aggressive push has not been without controversy. Banks initially blocked KRA’s attempt to integrate its system with that of 38 lenders amid fears that the taxman could access sensitive personal information such as cash flows in accounts without adequate safeguards. Bankers expressed concern that KRA could use the integration to access customer information unlawfully, exposing banks to lawsuits and penalties from the data protection watchdog.

The plan to access sensitive personal data, including details of properties owned and bank accounts as well as cash transfers on mobile phones without a court warrant, was initially included in the Finance Bill 2024 but was scuppered by the withdrawal of the bill following the anti-tax protests.

Despite these concerns, KRA has forged ahead with its enforcement agenda, determined to widen the tax base and boost revenue collection through technology and data analytics. The authority maintains that its approach is justified under existing law and that taxpayers who maintain proper records have nothing to fear.

For ordinary Kenyans, the message is clear. Every deposit into a bank account or mobile money wallet must now be accounted for with proper documentation. Failure to do so could result in an unexpected tax bill that presumes the money is income unless proven otherwise. In this new era of digital tax enforcement, the burden of proof has shifted decisively from the taxman to the taxpayer.

Kenya Railways Corporation has issued a seven-day demolition notice targeting Neno Evangelism Centre, the sprawling church empire of controversial televangelist Pastor James Ng’ang’a, in a dramatic escalation of a land dispute that has simmered for years.

The state agency’s move to reclaim prime property along Haile Selassie Avenue has set the stage for a showdown with one of Kenya’s most polarizing preachers, whose fiery sermons and run-ins with the law have made him a household name.

The demolition notice, signed by Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga, warns that any structures remaining after the deadline will be brought down at the owners’ cost.

Pastor Ng’ang’a’s church sits on land that Kenya Railways insists forms part of a railway reserve earmarked for the ambitious Sh28 billion Railway City project.

The development, backed by Sh11.9 billion from the United Kingdom government, aims to transform Nairobi’s central railway station into a modern multimodal transport hub capable of moving 30,000 passengers per peak hour.

But the preacher is not going down without a fight.

In 2023, Ng’ang’a obtained a court injunction blocking Kenya Railways from interfering with his property, which he claims to own lawfully.

Court documents reveal the pastor had drawn up plans to develop a commercial complex with at least 20 shops, parking facilities and other amenities on the contested plot.

In a scathing court application, Ng’ang’a accused the state agency of attempting to unlawfully dispossess him after he notified them of his development plans.

The Environment and Land Court granted him temporary protection, with Judge Edward Wabwoto issuing orders restraining Kenya Railways from disturbing the pastor’s quiet enjoyment of the land pending the case’s determination.

The demolition threat extends beyond Ng’ang’a’s empire.

Also in the firing line is Jesus Is Alive Ministries, led by former Starehe MP Bishop Margaret Wanjiru, another politically connected televangelist who has accused the government of betrayal.

Her church compound was partially demolished in 2024 when unknown individuals tore down a perimeter wall, claiming to act on Kenya Railways’ instructions.

Wanjiru, visibly emotional at the time, lamented that the government she had campaigned for was now targeting her ministry.

Two years earlier, the Environment and Land Court had dismissed her petition challenging Kenya Railways’ construction of a wall separating church land from railway property, ruling that she had failed to prove encroachment.

The Railway City project spans 13 acres and promises to revolutionize public transport in the capital.

Plans include laying 45 kilometers of new railway track, constructing a new central station building, building overbridges across platforms, and establishing a freight marshalling yard at Makadara.

The development will feature office blocks, shopping malls and a light industrial hub, with completion initially targeted for 2027.

Two petrol stations and an abandoned construction site are also marked for demolition as Kenya Railways accelerates site clearance for the project.

The corporation says final designs have been completed and procurement processes are underway, signaling that demolitions could begin imminently.

For Pastor Ng’ang’a, whose ministry has weathered numerous controversies including a 2015 road accident that left one person dead, the demolition notice represents yet another legal battle.

Known for his combative style and lavish lifestyle, the preacher has built a religious empire that includes a television station and large congregation.

The standoff mirrors similar disputes across Nairobi where the government has embarked on aggressive land reclamation drives.

Recent evictions in Mariguini displaced over 5,000 families to pave way for affordable housing projects, while Kiambu Governor Kimani Wamatangi has cried political persecution after demolitions of Nyayo properties.

As the seven-day ultimatum ticks down, all eyes are on whether Ng’ang’a’s 2023 court injunction will hold or whether bulldozers will roll into Haile Selassie Avenue.

Kenya Railways has made clear it intends to take full possession of the land, setting the stage for what could be one of the most dramatic demolitions in recent memory.

The corporation insists the Railway City project is critical for easing congestion in Nairobi’s central business district and improving connectivity across the metropolitan area.

But for Ng’ang’a and Wanjiru, the price of progress could be the loss of their religious strongholds in the heart of the capital.

Nairobi, January 19, 2026 — Kenya has formally opened one of its most strategic state assets to public ownership after the National Treasury on Monday launched the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) Initial Public Offering at the Nairobi Securities Exchange, marking the largest IPO in the country’s history and the first to be conducted electronically.

Under the offer, the Government is selling 65 percent of KPC’s 11.8 billion issued ordinary shares at Sh9 per share, a move that will significantly dilute state ownership in the petroleum transporter and usher the company into the public markets for the first time.

The offer period runs from January 19 to February 19, with trading of KPC shares expected to begin on March 9, subject to regulatory clearances. The broader privatisation process is slated to conclude by the end of March.

Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi said the listing was a cornerstone of the government’s state-owned enterprise reform agenda, aimed at broadening citizen ownership while deepening capital markets.

“This IPO is about transforming a wholly state-owned enterprise into a people-owned company,” Mbadi said during the launch ceremony in Nairobi, adding that the transaction would strengthen both KPC and the Nairobi Securities Exchange.

The IPO includes an Employee Share Ownership Plan, with five percent of the offer shares reserved for eligible KPC staff, allowing workers to acquire a direct stake in the company’s future performance.

Privatisation Authority chairman Faisal Abass described the transaction as a test case for transparent and technology-driven privatisation, noting that the electronic structure was designed to widen access and improve governance.

KPC becomes the first company to list through an e-IPO at the NSE, coming at a time when the bourse has recorded renewed momentum, with market capitalisation surpassing Sh3 trillion late last year  .

Proceeds from the sale will go directly to the Exchequer and form part of the government’s financing plan for the 2025/26 financial year. Treasury said the funds will support priority sectors including energy, roads, water and irrigation, airports, and broader fiscal consolidation efforts.

The offer is open to Kenyan retail and institutional investors, East African Community investors, oil marketing companies, KPC employees, and international investors, in line with capital markets regulations.

Founded in 1973, KPC operates more than 1,300 kilometres of petroleum pipelines and is central to Kenya’s fuel supply chain and regional energy trade. The company is among the country’s most profitable state corporations, reporting revenues of Sh38.6 billion and net profits of Sh10.37 billion for the year ended June 2025.

Upon completion of the IPO, KPC will transition from a state corporation to a publicly listed firm on the NSE’s Main Investment Market Segment, fundamentally reshaping ownership of a key national infrastructure asset.

The sprawling business empire of prominent Kenyan businessman Abdinasir Ali Hassan, chairman of Hass Petroleum Group Limited, is teetering on the brink of financial ruin after the Court of Appeal delivered a crushing blow to his desperate attempts to save a prime Nairobi property from the auctioneer’s hammer.

In a devastating ruling that has sent shockwaves through Kenya’s business community, a three-judge appellate bench comprising Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Mumbi Ngugi, and Aggrey Muchelule dismissed Hassan’s eleventh-hour petition with costs, paving the way for Credit Bank Limited to proceed with the auction of a prized Upper Hill property valued at a staggering KSh 1.2 billion.

The court’s decision marks a spectacular fall for the petroleum magnate, whose business interests now hang in the balance as creditors close in on valuable assets that once symbolized his commercial success.

Court documents reveal a complex web of corporate debt that began unraveling in September 2020 when One Upperhill Towers Limited pledged the suit property as collateral to Credit Bank Limited. The security was intended to guarantee enormous financial facilities totaling KSh 1.2 billion that had been advanced to two associated companies, Jabavu Village Limited and Hasson Pharmaceuticals Limited.

The deal appeared straightforward until cracks began to emerge. By January 30, 2025, One Upperhill Towers Limited was racing to the High Court in a frantic bid to stop Credit Bank Limited from auctioning the property through Purple Royal Auctioneers and Garam Investments Auctioneers.

In court papers filed with evident urgency, Hassan’s camp painted a picture of corporate persecution, claiming the loan had been serviced regularly and that the bank’s auction plans were nothing short of malicious, unprocedural and unlawful. They accused Credit Bank of brazenly flouting mandatory provisions enshrined in Sections 89, 90, and 96 of the Land Act, insisting their legal right to redeem the property had been trampled upon.

But the Court of Appeal was having none of it. In a ruling that legal experts describe as unambiguous and final, the three judges tore through the arguments presented by Hassan’s legal team, finding them fundamentally lacking in merit.

The court held that evidence of default was crystal clear and indisputable. In language that left no room for misinterpretation, the judges explained that once a charged property is used to secure a loan and the borrower fails to meet their obligations, the property automatically transforms into a commodity available for sale. The default, they determined, triggered the bank’s legitimate right to recover its funds through auction.

The decision represents more than just a legal defeat for Hassan. It exposes the precarious financial position of businesses operating under the Hass Petroleum umbrella and raises uncomfortable questions about the group’s ability to service massive debts accumulated during what now appears to have been an aggressive expansion phase.

Upper Hill, where the doomed property sits, ranks among Nairobi’s most sought-after commercial districts. The area has transformed dramatically over the past decade into a gleaming corridor of glass towers, international hotels, and corporate headquarters. A KSh 1.2 billion property in this prime location represents not just significant value but a strategic asset that any business would fight tooth and nail to retain.

The fact that Hassan has lost this legal battle suggests the financial pressures facing his group may be far more severe than previously understood. Business analysts watching the case have begun speculating about what other assets might be at risk and whether this auction represents an isolated incident or the beginning of a broader unraveling.

Credit Bank Limited, for its part, has maintained a studied silence throughout the legal proceedings, allowing its lawyers to do the talking in court. The bank’s position has been consistent and unyielding. The money was lent, the property was pledged, payments were not made as required, and therefore the auction must proceed. The Court of Appeal has now validated that position entirely.

For Purple Royal Auctioneers and Garam Investments Auctioneers, the firms tasked with conducting the sale, the court’s green light means they can now move forward with what promises to be one of the most significant property auctions in recent Kenyan commercial history. Industry insiders expect intense bidding from deep-pocketed investors eager to snap up prime real estate at what they hope will be below-market prices.

The wider implications of this case extend beyond Hassan’s personal business interests. The Hass Petroleum Group has been a visible player in Kenya’s energy sector for years, operating fuel stations across the country and positioning itself as a homegrown competitor to multinational oil companies. The group’s potential financial distress raises questions about stability in the sector and the sustainability of aggressive business models built on substantial leverage.

Legal experts note that the Court of Appeal’s dismissal with costs adds insult to injury for Hassan. Not only has he lost the substantive case, but he must now pay the legal expenses incurred by Credit Bank Limited in defending against his appeal. These costs, while likely modest compared to the KSh 1.2 billion at stake, underscore the totality of his defeat.

As the dust settles on this bruising court battle, attention now turns to whether Hassan and his associated companies will attempt any further legal maneuvers to delay the inevitable or whether they will finally accept defeat and allow the auction to proceed. Legal observers suggest that further appeals at this stage would be futile given the comprehensive nature of the Court of Appeal’s dismissal.

The case serves as a stark reminder of the risks inherent in using valuable property as collateral for business loans. While such arrangements can fuel expansion and growth during good times, they can quickly become existential threats when cash flows tighten and loan obligations cannot be met.

For Credit Bank Limited, the ruling represents vindication of its rights as a lender and sends a clear message to other borrowers about the consequences of default. The bank can now proceed to recover its funds through the auction process, although whether the property will fetch its full KSh 1.2 billion valuation in a competitive sale remains to be seen.

As the gavel prepares to fall on this prime Upper Hill property, Abdinasir Ali Hassan must confront an uncomfortable new reality. The business empire he built is facing its gravest challenge, and the courts have made clear they will not intervene to save him from the consequences of financial decisions made years ago.